ELM v. Loretta E. Lynch, No. 15-2082 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Wollman, Bowman, and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Petition for review - immigration. Petition for review of denial of asylum and relief under the Convention Against Torture is denied. The record does not compel the conclusion petitioners have a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground and there is no support for a claim under CAT.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2082 ___________________________ ELM; Lidia Larios-Miranda; Selina Larios-Miranda lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners v. Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: April 21, 2016 Filed: May 5, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Guatemalan citizens and siblings ELM, and Lidia and Selina Larios-Miranda petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of their applications for asylum and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 Where, as here, the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision but adds its own reasoning, this court reviews both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions together. See Quinonez-Perez v. Holder, 635 F.3d 342, 344 (8th Cir. 2011) (decisions are reviewed to determine if substantial evidence supports them, and are reversed only when petitioner shows evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find in his favor). We disagree with petitioners that the record compels the conclusion that they have a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground.2 See Garcia-Colindres v. Holder, 700 F.3d 1153, 1158 (8th Cir. 2012) (petitioners must demonstrate that fear is subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable); see also Aguinada-Lopez v. Lynch, 814 F.3d 924, 926 (8th Cir. 2016) (for particular social group to be cognizable, it must share common, immutable characteristic, be defined with particularity, and be socially distinct such that it is identified as group by society of which it is part). We also find no support in the record for their CAT claim. See Juarez Chilel v. Holder, 779 F.3d 850, 856 (8th Cir. 2015) (discussing requirements for relief under CAT). The petition for review is denied. ______________________________ 1 Petitioners have waived the denial of withholding of removal. See Wanyama v. Holder, 698 F.3d 1032, 1035 n.1 (8th Cir. 2012) (waiver of claim). 2 Petitioners concede that they did not establish past persecution. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
